Whistleblower Protection Act of 1987: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Federal Services, Post Office, and Civil Service of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundredth Congress, First Session, on S. 508, to Amend Title 5, United States Code ... July 20 and 31, 1987
United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. Subcommittee on Federal Services, Post Office, and Civil Service
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988 - 548 páginas
Opinião das pessoas - Escrever uma crítica
Não foram encontradas quaisquer críticas nos locais habituais.
Outras edições - Ver tudo
abuse administrative agency agreement alleged appeal applicant arbitration asked authority believe bill Board Brothers called Chairman charges Chief civil service classified information Committee complaint concerned conduct Congress continue corrective action court decision Department determination disclosure documentation effect evidence Executive fact federal employees filed final further Government hearing HIPPLE individual initial interest investigation involved issue legislation letter LIBRARY meeting MSPB Office of Special performance person personnel action position present problems procedures prohibited personnel practices proposed protection questions reason received recommendations record reprisal request response result rule seek Senator LEVIN Senator PRYOR Special Counsel specific staff statement stay Subcommittee taken testimony Thank tion told United violation Washington waste whistleblowers WHITSON WIESEMAN Wilson witnesses
Página 299 - In no case shall information be classified in order to conceal violations of law. inefficiency, or administrative error, to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; to restrain competition; or to prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.
Página 441 - ... motivating factor" in the Board's decision not to rehire him. Respondent having carried that burden, however, the District Court should have gone on to determine whether the Board had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision as to respondent's reemployment even in the absence of the protected conduct.
Página 512 - And in case any person" or persons shall wilfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye, castrate, or cruelly scald, burn, or deprive any slave of any limb or member, or shall inflict any other cruel punishment, other than by whipping or beating with a horse-whip, cow-skin, switch or small stick, or by putting irons on, or confining or imprisoning such slave, every such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money.
Página 304 - This section does not apply to matters that are — ( 1 )(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order...
Página 483 - ... a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety...
Página 304 - Information may not be classified under this Order unless its disclosure reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.
Página 440 - A rule of causation which focuses solely on whether protected conduct played a part, "substantial" or otherwise, in a decision not to rehire, could place an employee in a better position as a result of the exercise of constitutionally protected conduct than he would have occupied had he done nothing. The...
Página 513 - A slave has never maintained an action against the violator of his bed. A slave is not admonished for incontinence, or punished for fornication or adultery ; never prosecuted for bigamy, or petty treason for killing a husband being a slave, any more than admitted to an appeal for murder.
Página 440 - Court is thai it would require reinstatement in cases where a dramatic and perhaps abrasive incident is inevitably on the minds of those responsible for the decision to rehire, and does indeed play a part in that decision ---even if the same decision would have been reached had the incident not occurred. The constitutional principle at stake is sufficiently vindicated if such an employee is placed in no worse a position than if he had not engaged in the conduct.